• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

"We do not believe you are a good match for our community"

Status
Not open for further replies.

ben909

vaporeon with Axolotl gill array as neck fin
See that's why I'm asking for a legal status of some sort instead of 12 users wasting my time, a store could write "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason", wouldn't mean that would fly or be acceptable
I thought that is thought legal status ment
 

Lutro

Writer
Web sites can ban or prevent people from using their services, from their site, for any reason really.

This is not a new concept, nor is it controversial. You'd be going against literal decades of precedent if you really wanted to "fight" this sort of thing.

You are not going to find some legal remedy wherein FA or any site will be forced to let you continue using their site, should they choose not to let you. "But it's unfair" is not a legal argument that holds any weight. Don't like the reason given? Not much that can be done about that.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Web sites can ban or prevent people from using their services, from their site, for any reason really.

This is not a new concept, nor is it controversial. You'd be going against literal decades of precedent if you really wanted to "fight" this sort of thing.

You are not going to find some legal remedy wherein FA or any site will be forced to let you continue using their site, should they choose not to let you. "But it's unfair" is not a legal argument that holds any weight. Don't like the reason given? Not much that can be done about that.
I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider
 

TyraWadman

The Silent Observer
I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider

I'm curious as to what site you've used that doesn't have any terms or conditions. I read every tos when I make an account for a site. Every game or website I actively use/have played has one. Even single player games!

It's essentially legroom for when people are disruptive. Every situation is different and unique in its own, so rather than coming up with a detailed list outlining every possible scenario in existence, it's much easier to say 'that'.

I wouldn't want people twisting an environment I worked hard to create. So it makes sense.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
I'm curious as to what site you've used that doesn't have any terms or conditions. I read every tos when I make an account for a site. Every game or website I actively use/have played has one. Even single player games!

It's essentially legroom for when people are disruptive. Every situation is different and unique in its own, so rather than coming up with a detailed list outlining every possible scenario in existence, it's much easier to say 'that'.

I wouldn't want people twisting an environment I worked hard to create. So it makes sense.
You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason
 

Lutro

Writer
I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider
I'm not defending anything. I'm merely stating what the reality is. You don't have to accept it, or call it fair.

There is nothing magical about a site letting you know what it has the full capability of doing, even if they don't state it. You're not going to find a loophole or contingency where a site has to let a user stay on it, if they don't want you there. Period.
 

TyraWadman

The Silent Observer
You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason

That's a part of the legroom/generalization though. And you still haven't listed any sites that don't also feature this in their TOS.

Typically, professional people will give legitimate reason, like slamming down the hammer on a user that deliberately skirts the rules in order to upset a community. Other times it could be spambots or death threats. If someone wants to ban a user with absolutely no other reason than 'you had a typo in a forum post' they can. Sure it's ridiculous, and people can react however they want, but legally there is nothing that can be done about it. It's been a thing before FA.

Rules like these exist because people will drink bleach and then sue the company for not having a warning telling them not to consume the product.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
Considering FA will take just about anybody, I too am curious about what actually happened in this situation.
 

Lucyfur

United forever in friendship and labour
Banned
You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason
In the words of others I have encountered "If they won't bake your cake just go to another bakery"
^(This is meant to be tongue in cheek btw as when it comes to the reality of that statement in its totality it becomes much more complex and dangerous)^

For the n'th time though this situation seems to be lacking in information and providing the whole picture of the situation.
 
Last edited:

ConorHyena

nazi hunter
See that's why I'm asking for a legal status of some sort instead of 12 users wasting my time, a store could write "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason", wouldn't mean that would fly or be acceptable

... in simple terms this is exactly what our predominantly capitalist social order is about. It's called the free market because you're allowed to do business with whom you wish. Same goes with contract law. For different types of contracts there are, depending on the legal regulatons in the country the contract is being made, various imperative and dispositive norms that apply or, upon mutual agreement, do not apply (which in case of a website is you clicking on 'I accept the terms of service') If both parties agree that one side is allowed to terminate the contract for no reason - this is legally binding.
 

AniwayasSong

Active Member
I was under the impression that FA had TOS because you had to break rules in order to get banned (aside from some questionable decisions by old mods from the past but meh, those are history now) but I've heard someone I used to follow got banned after over a decade of membership with the following explanation : "we do not believe you are a good match for our community". So in essence, they're saying that they can ban you just because they don't like you.

InB4 someone comes up with the usual excuse, "something something it's a private website and can ban whoever they want for whatever reason" (section 230 might add some nuance to this but whatever); I'm not entirely convinced the same people would react well to getting arbitrarily terminated for displeasing the "site director". I don't care if they're entitled to do that, if you don't think it's bullshit, you're wrong =^.^=

That brings me to my main point : I've seen some trusted members of the community raise concerns about cult recruiting activity on FA, so that wording especially, should raise some red flags. I was gonna ask if FA is a publisher or a platform, but... turns out it's neither, it's a "community"...? the problem here is that it's unclear, and some unaccountable people choose who's welcome and who's not by virtue of owning the place; that does sound worryingly cultish to me, especially knowing that furries typically are vulnerable to being influenced in this way by perceived authority figures.

In short what I'm asking is, what exactly is the legal status of FA, what does being a "community" imply exactly? is it more like 1) a publisher, 2) a platform, or 3) a cult?
It's actually sadly simple-
This is a private site that can and does what it wants for its own interests.
The flavor it gives to those who visit or participate in it?
Well...
 

Kellan Meig'h

Kilted Luthier
You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason
You're not getting it. Their house, their rules. You don't pay for services here and your agreement to use FA and FAF say you play by the rules and they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all. Just like going into a grocery store; they reserve the right to refuse service for any or no reason at all. This is a fact. There is no 'legal' precedence that says you can alter the contract or they can't ask you to leave. Again, their house, their rules.

And, asking someone to leave is a whole lot more polite than just turning off thier account access.
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
I'm not really interested in analogies there, I would like to know the legal status. If the status doesn't match, analogies are meaningless.

"legal" status??? Really? I don't know anything about the situation nor do I want to, but I can see something right away:

Let em ask you this, assuming that the "legal" case was 100% in their favour theoretically...are you saying that the person would have the right to SUE to be FORCED back into a community? Think for a second...if that actually happened, how welcome would they be expected to feel? They'd have bullied their way back, indignitantly at that! Would they then sue becasue nobody wants to interact with them? Forced mandatory reading of their posts? <LOL>

This is a forum that can accept or reject anyone they want! If someone has to argue the technicalities to be allowed back, there's only going to be problems down the road. After all, if someone feels they have the right to "force" people to let them hang around, that's probably why they were banned in the first place! <snicker>
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
You're not getting it. Their house, their rules
It's not a house tho, so I'll repeat once again something I've already repeated a couple of times, I'm asking for the legal status (which I doubt would be the same as the legal status of a house), and it's fine if you're clueless about it, just don't waste my time with your uneducated opinion please
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
It's not a house tho, so I'll repeat once again something I've already repeated a couple of times, I'm asking for the legal status (which I doubt would be the same as the legal status of a house), and it's fine if you're clueless about it, just don't waste my time with your uneducated opinion please

<sigh> Ok then...as pointless as this is, I'll humour ya, just to make this go quicker:

The forum is considered their property as the registered owner. To host publicly they have to comply with the limits of their primary host. (basic legal stuff like enforcement of age restrictions and sex/drug/race/hate/swearing, as per federal rules for how they regestered themselves. Same for literally anything...common sense stuff).

As long as they comply with those rules, they then can do whatever the hell they want, as it's their personal website and we're all just guests playing around for as long as they can stand us. We have no rights here...we have what they allow, and if they want to toss out everyone who's a dog becasue they are cat people then guess what?New rule...no dogs allowed. A court ruling would say "their house, their rules".

That is the legal standing...does that help? All clear now? <giggle>
 

cowboi

DM me your favorite dinosaur
Frank, it's all spelled out clearly in the terms and conditions you read thoroughly and agreed to during account creation, and didn't just breeze past.
Asking the same question over and over isn't gonna give you a different answer when a handful of people keep explaining it.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
The word "community" tends to imply, at minimum, a space where people interact with and exist alongside with each other. The word "community"can also imply a sense of shared values, shared goals, and a feeling of being "in this together."

Online platforms use the word "community," I'd say, to evoke an image of people actively engaging and connecting with one another.

Yeeting someone simply for being an outlier or nonconformist is potentially problematic least of all because it can easily set a bad precedent.

Yeeting someone for violating the Terms of Service and/or being an active threat or problem for the community is common practice, at least, and sometimes needs to be done for the sake of the community/platform/space.
 

TheCynicalViet

Well-Known Member
INB4, Frank Gulotta gets banned for "not being a good match for our community". That's a joke mods!

For real though, yes, what they're doing is legal. As of right now, I believe sites like FA are still classed as service providers and not platforms/publishers (don't quote me on this). Also I'm too lazy to copy and paste it but @ConorHyena did cite a part in TOS that basically does say they can arbitrarily ban you. At least they're upfront about it. If laws change then maybe you can try to pursue some sort of legal action but, currently, it's not gonna succeed (or, at least, have an exceedingly low chance of succeeding).
 

Lutro

Writer
For real though, yes, what they're doing is legal. As of right now, I believe sites like FA are still classed as service providers and not platforms/publishers (don't quote me on this). Also I'm too lazy to copy and paste it but @ConorHyena did cite a part in TOS that basically does say they can arbitrarily ban you. At least they're upfront about it. If laws change then maybe you can try to pursue some sort of legal action but, currently, it's not gonna succeed (or, at least, have an exceedingly low chance of succeeding).
So, it would be very rare for any site on the planet to be classified as that. There's maybe a case for Twitter/Facebook/YouTube, but even those have not crossed that threshold.

Also by the way: Even if there was no TOS, it is still their site. Their server. They can still boot out whoever they want. There's not going to be any "there's no rule that says dogs *can't* play football" scenario that gets drummed up here, because the real world, thankfully, doesn't work that way. (Could you imagine if any web site could be forced to let someone that they previously kicked/banned out, to stay in? That'd be not only monumentally stupid, but also dangerous (imagine if a malicious user was this user; or one that was harassing others.))

This thread's going in circles at this point though, since Frank simply does not want to listen to any of the dozens of offered explanations and keeps re-asking the same question.
 

Kellan Meig'h

Kilted Luthier
It's not a house tho, so I'll repeat once again something I've already repeated a couple of times, I'm asking for the legal status (which I doubt would be the same as the legal status of a house), and it's fine if you're clueless about it, just don't waste my time with your uneducated opinion please
I'm not clueless, Frank. I host two BBS and I admin a third. Rules are set forth, the ones you most likely breezed through and did not read when you signed up. As the owner of the forum, they have every right to ask you to leave or ban you. You agreed to those terms when you signed up.

If that is not clear enough, maybe you should look at and carefully read the TOS before posting again.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
I'm not clueless, Frank. I host two BBS and I admin a third. Rules are set forth, the ones you most likely breezed through and did not read when you signed up. As the owner of the forum, they have every right to ask you to leave or ban you. You agreed to those terms when you signed up.

If that is not clear enough, maybe you should look at and carefully read the TOS before posting again.
Okay, it's pointless to ask you a simple question, lesson learned. So one last time let's go through this but PLEASE go away. You can put a sign saying that some group isn't welcome but it doesn't mean it complies with the law which is why I'm asking for a legal status as opposed to what some dipshit says their rules are. Again don't waste my time boomer.
 

contemplationistwolf

The Restless Maverick
Okay, it's pointless to ask you a simple question, lesson learned. So one last time let's go through this but PLEASE go away. You can put a sign saying that some group isn't welcome but it doesn't mean it complies with the law which is why I'm asking for a legal status as opposed to what some dipshit says their rules are. Again don't waste my time boomer.
Hah, how snappy. I think laws are generally meant to say what you can't do, rather than what you can do. You are basically asking us to prove there doesn't exist a law that makes this illegal, which basically means reading the whole US law, somehow proving to you that we have done that and stating "it is legal". I think the burden of proof here should lie on those stating that it's illegal.

Anyhow, much bigger sites, sites that people are much more eager to litigate (like Twitter) have done similar things without consequence, so that's very strong evidence that this indeed is legal.
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
Hah, how snappy. I think laws are generally meant to say what you can't do, rather than what you can do. You are basically asking us to prove there doesn't exist a law that makes this illegal, which basically means reading the whole US law, somehow proving to you that we have done that and stating "it is legal". I think the burden of proof here should lie on those stating that it's illegal.

Anyhow, much bigger sites, sites that people are much more eager to litigate (like Twitter) have done similar things without consequence, so that's very strong evidence that this indeed is legal.

Close, but basically he was asking and asking and asking until he finds someone who gives him an answer he can accept. This was not a discussion ever.

He knew damn well that the law says that this website is privately owned, he just wanted to "encourage a discussion on legal rights" to distract from the fact that the ultimate goal was stupid and unobtainable. I mean, when you break it down, he or the person he was asking on behalf of wanted some nebulous legal matter to justify either shutting the site down from some imaginary terms of service violation out of spite, or forcing them to accept someone that they clearly did not want around and trying to use a legal bludgeon to get their way.

Either way, dick move and no actual goal, since even if the person returned they'd be just as unwelcome...even more so after the BS to get them back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top